The conclusion of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.
posted 6/01/2007 03:01PM
Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity ...
A wonderful debate, thank you CT. Mythsmasher, your black and white, either-or challenge is both simplistic and terribly uninformed. Fundamentalist Chistianity is riddled with contradictions and does not reflect a much richer and more ancient theological tradition. The Scriptures were written over a long time by a faith community. Much is literal and non-negotiable, and much is historically conditioned and different in meaning for the original audience than for later generations. It is the wisdom of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that discerns this over the centuries.
Anonymous
Posted: June 14, 2007 11:38 AM
Mr. Hitchens, I recently read your debate with Douglas Wilson on www.christianitytoday.com, and that means (as you would assume) I am an evangelical Christian myself, though only 18 years of age. In the article you did make many good points, but the overall question was if Christianity was good for the world, and in the final article you made a challenge, which was “Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist?” I would very much like to take you up on this challenge.
In the third paragraph of your response, you admitted that you have no idea what it is like to be a sociopath or a psychopath, but that you do not wish to coexist with them because it risks you and your family’s lives. So I will challenge you on that point. Wilson said he would reach out to them, and to be fair, you said the exact opposite. But, whose fault is it from an Atheists viewpoint that such a person has
Morality simply stated
Posted: June 14, 2007 10:53 AM
"Right" and "wrong" are really unhelpful and confusing words, which imply absolutism. "Morality" is simply the agreed preferred societal norms of a group of people. The prevailing norm is determined by the historical "winner" (like history itself). However, for a people and its norms to be a "winner," their norms must make for a more successful society. The norms are revised (evolve is a loaded term here) over time to correct "failures" in the society. Those strategies that build up society (via the success of the underlying communities & individuals) we tend to call "good" or "right." Those that damage the society in some way we call "bad" or "wrong." "Competing" societies are successful but have developed different strategies. Our society fought to preserve our approach in WWII; we are doing so again today with Islam. We can't be so arrogant to assume we will win b/c we're on the side of God's ultimate good; so also says the enemy. All such claims are always incorrect.
FreeAtLast
Posted: June 14, 2007 10:14 AM
To the fellow who thought "why is rape wrong?" is a challenge question to atheists: I should not like to be raped. Therefore, I will say that rape is wrong. Our standard morality, which Christians think can only be divinely given, is really simply the codification of the golden rule - a moral standard which is not unique to Christianity. It is not really even unique to humanity; primate species exhibit simple moral behaviors based on this premise.
"Christian" morality took Paul's ramblings too seriously, and has become a convoluted set of do's and don'ts based on casting certain perfectly normal human behaviors as"sins" and various pointless displays of piety as "virtues." And don't forget the introduction of a concept having nothing to do with morality - existential salvation. The willingness to suspend the golden rule - the essence of "morality" - to further this cause is surely all that needs to be noted to affirm that Christianity is neither good nor necessary for the world
John
Posted: June 13, 2007 6:49 PM
...continued due to character limit...
While we are all at present acutely aware of another very similar religion embarking on an extremist course under textual excitations of a very similar book, we also still find the warrant (incitements) for the immorality of the Christian, a matter of historical record, remains in their book as well. So I suppose I am thankful not many of them actually read it. Hopefully some of the few that may have read it can and will “recover” rather than choose to renew the Inquisition.
John
Posted: June 13, 2007 6:42 PM
Thank you, Mr. Hitchens for another “pushback” in yet another venue wherein the irrationality and conceit of the believing mind has been exposed. I think every type of logic fallacy is on exhibit (necessarily so, I suppose when arguing for the nonexistent), but the statement that, sans Christianity, only nihilism can prevail is probably the most laughable. Notwithstanding the sophistry of the ‘bees and necks’ argument, no credible evidence for a god of any sort was or ever has been presented either (I am persistently reminded of Clinton’s “that depends on what your definition of is is” argument) let alone any evidence for the innate immorality of atheism. The warrant for morality for the Christian however remains in an invisible entity that demands servitude and worship or face eternal torture and lament. It’s scary enough that a very large group would find THAT motivation necessary to perchance find some way to be ‘good for the world’.
Becca
Posted: June 12, 2007 7:57 PM
In response to Hitchens' challenge to readers to "name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist", I would like to ask if this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55426) could have been done without help and motivation from the one who said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do".
Rswood
Posted: June 12, 2007 10:06 AM
"Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist?"
Love of God.
Now the atheist will respond that this moral action does not apply to him., and of course, this is because the challenge is really limited thusly: an atheist can do anything moral that he first agrees is moral. Such is the failure of atheist morality and the failure of Hitchens argument.
Doug
Posted: June 08, 2007 7:52 PM
I really enjoyed reading this debate. A job well done by both writers. Congratulations go to Douglas Wilson for presenting his position with thoughtfullness ,respect, and clarity. I am sure that with time and the prayers of Christians, Mr. Hitchens will recover.
Opinionated
Posted: June 08, 2007 2:50 PM
Most of the atheists on this forum are their usual abusive selves. No matter. Let them answer this question; why is rape wrong? (If they answer, because it is a gross violation of someone's personal autonomy, then they must explain why it is wrong, morally wrong, to violate someone's personal autonomy in this way).
Robert
Posted: June 08, 2007 12:06 PM
CT should have found someone of Hitchens capacity to fill out the other side of the ledger in this exchange. Hitchens does not take Wilson seriously, and unfortunately nothing Wilson has to say causes him to do so. I have read Hitchens for years, but who is Douglas Wilson? I don't mean to be unkind (ok maybe a little), but lets face it Wilson was simply not up for the task of sparing with Hitchens. I have not read his book, and based on his exchange with Hitchens see little reason to do so. However, I will undoubtedly purchase and read Hitchens's book, if for no other reason its clear that he did not even bother to bring out the big guns, because he so obviously did not need them in this exchange. While perhaps not all that witty, Alvin Plantinga would have been a more worthy candidate. The funny thing is that CT readers think that Hitchens lost this debate, when in fact he didn't even get up from the chair to stretch.
Evan
Posted: June 06, 2007 8:53 AM
So after all the words, it comes down to the old familiar argument: the need of Wilson to believe that "true" morality must be based on the "fixed" standard "described" in the Bible. This is a comforting concept for many, but the practical problem is that, even if one accepted that the Bible presented the one and only "absolute" moral standard, it is clear that human interpretation of that standard has always been far from "fixed". I know of no two Chrisitans who, when faced with identical life situations, make consistently identical moral choices, even though they both earnestly believe their actions to have been guided by the "fixed moral code". So if even the true believers of a fixed code cannot reach a common understanding of how to translate that code into action, does that fixed code really exist at all? In the end, the only real measure of morality is what one does, not what one says (or professes to "believe").
Eric
Posted: June 06, 2007 12:46 AM
Jacob – I accept and return your offer of friendship. Sorry for the delayed response. To answer your question: Yes, I do concede many of Hitchens’ points. By the same token, I agree with many of Wilson’s, but he strikes me as a more ideologically rigid Francis Schaeffer wannabe. While I am a Christian, I do not identify with most conservative Christians who tend to interpret Jesus through St. Paul rather than embracing the Jesus of the Gospel, the Jesus who preached the Sermon on the Mount. (It’s ironic how literalist Christians become suddenly metaphorical when dealing with Jesus’ most comprehensive sermon.) On the other hand, many of my less extreme atheist/agnostic friends find much to agree with in Jesus’ message, even though they don’t accept his divinity and feel repulsed by the current wave of conservative aggressiveness. But extremists on both sides would accuse us of lacking the courage of our convictions or passion. I debt both charges.
Dave Dorman
Posted: June 05, 2007 11:47 AM
Hitchens challenges us: "Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist? My email is available to any reader who is willing to accept this challenge." Couldn't find his email address, but my answer would be the following action/utterance: "I invite you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior." Which is to say, his challenge is empty given the differences in values of the two camps.
Only four stars, because the debate so quickly abandonned the set topic--"Has Christianity been good for the world?"--and shifted to the general cogency of Christianity vs. that of atheism.
Rusty
Posted: June 05, 2007 11:43 AM
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary faith, not evidence. Evidence is interpreted in light of our highest subject of faith. The Christian has faith in the triune God. He answers all claims for his allegiance in light of this faith. It is necessarily a circular and mystic appeal.
It makes sense to me to eat Christ and drink his blood. I believe pouring water on someone's head, accompanied by "magic" words of institution, actually does something. I think we should anoint the sick with oil. I believe in the resurrection, the virgin birth, and the dragon in the garden of Eden.
The Jolly Nihilist wants hard evidence for Christian truth claims. He asks for certainty. But how would he process such evidence? I'd like to know if he plans on using his mushy, electrically charged, juicy, and dying brain to weigh the evidence presented and respond in any way that makes his circular appeal to reason conclusively more cogent or interesting than my appeal to an ancient book.
Jorge
Posted: June 05, 2007 9:03 AM
Very interesting debate, but somewhat disappointing. Hitchens keeps refusing to understand what Christians believe. Anyway, the answer to the question is clear: we thousands of millions of Christians have experienced it in our lives - that as we practice the Gospel, we became better and happier human beings. It's just a fact.
JJN
Posted: June 04, 2007 9:28 PM
There's been a lot of reference to Old Testament sanctions of all sorts of egregious behavior, and I'm hoping someone can cite chapter and verse. Several of the episodes seem to be exceptional; that is, I read them as part of the liberation history of Israel, rather than examples for daily living for all time. I'm assuming that the alleged divine sanction of atrocities is somewhere in the neighborhood of Deuteronomy 20-21, but it's a big long Bible. I'd love to know where people are finding their text and their interpretation.
impossibleape
Posted: June 04, 2007 5:04 PM
I have enjoyed this entire series. I am a Christian who is mad at God for many of the reasons spoken of by Christopher. I am a 'sometimes' atheist who continues to be mad at the Being that I sometimes do not believe in.
I was inspired to think better of the Christian tradition and teachings by Douglas's excellent defence of Jesus as the life of (and therefore the good of) the world. But I agree with Chris that even Christianity needs to evolve and no amount of contortions or ridiculous justifications can justify the outrages to simple morality contained in the Old and to a lesser extent the New Testaments.
I give the debate to Doug. Even though I am still a 'sometimes' Christian athesit (as I expect Chris is) I do feel a little better because of what I have experienced here and I hope Chris will too........in the evolving contingency of time.
Thanks to all.
Mike
Posted: June 04, 2007 4:45 PM
We are not all sociopaths but we are all narcissists. For Hitch, this is morality, mediated through evolution to favor traits that benefit society. I need some rubber boots. Which society is he speaking of? I’ll bet not talking violent gang societies. Is he talking about the Assyrians, Genghis Khan and Tamer Lane, or the others that have committed horrific crimes to their societies' benefit? Religion may or may not be a tool (it wasn’t a tool in Cambodia, the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea) but the motive was Hitch’s inviolate evolution. It’s a weak twig to rest your hopes on. Morality is real when we do what is difficult, what does not reward you or your group. Hitch gives me no REASON to love the unlovely or weak, to do what costs me, only what gives me benefit. That is not morality. Go tell the firefighter to risk his life and justify it to him, personally, with evolution. We Christians say we are called by God to love (agapeo) our neighbor as ourselves. That is morality.
Hitch Rules
Posted: June 04, 2007 3:10 PM
He does give a reason. Hitchens is superior in this debate, it's not even close. The seond Wilson gets into talking about God and what he would/wouldn't/has/hasn't done, he sounds like a bronze age mystic idiot.
Let me ask you, if I had a child, and raised him to be supportive to people, caring, cooperative, willing to share resources, etc., I could do all this WITHOUT MENTIONING GOD OR THE BIBLE ONCE. NOT ONCE. This person would develop an understanding, with a brain that has evolved to be capable of such, for how to thrive as a living organism among other living organisms.
This is what he means by "morality" has "evolved." We KNOW now that violence, lack of caring for children, not sharing, etc., are NOT conducive to a successful civilization, especially giving the number of people out there. One can have 0 understanding of "God" or the horror that is the Old Testament, and still be an perfectly functioning person in a society. Ancient literature is not needed for this.
Nichole
Posted: June 04, 2007 2:44 PM
What people seem to forget is that Christianity is not bad for the people, but some of the so called Christians are bad for the world, hence bad for Christianity. People are forgiven, but not perfect at this time. Christians can make bad judgement calls, but we know where we can go to receive our forgiveness and learn to correct.
Marejka
Posted: June 04, 2007 2:34 PM
It is interesting that Hitchens argues morals evolve. If evolution is true, then Christianity is a manner of dealing with "evolved" morals. Christianity came into existence out of a human need which evolution met to ensure survival. Which of course means Hitchens has no alternative but to admit that Christianity is good for the world (since we evolve positively). That doesn't mean, however, that Christianity is true, but that is not what this debate was about. Hitchens has some thinking to do.
Uhhhh...
Posted: June 04, 2007 11:20 AM
Is anyone else disappointed by the fact that the debaters did not stick to the topic, or strive to answer the question being debated? A whole lot of sidetracking, a particularly insulting Mr. Hitchens, and, in the end, nothing but....nothing. If there's one thing this debate needed, it was a moderator to ensure that the assigned topic was actually debated, but I expected two learned men to be able to do that. "Is Christianity Good for the World?" became "What's Better, Atheism or Organized Religion?" - a cumbersome topic that goes absolutely nowhere no matter who the speakers. I appreciate CTs hosting, but I hope that next time the debaters actually know how to debate. A high-school team could have done better. Shame on you both, Hitchens and Wilson.
nathan
Posted: June 04, 2007 10:02 AM
It seems to me that Wilson's logic is circular: God gave you the ability to judge right from wrong, so how can one say what is right or wrong without God?
Hitchens, I think, is right. Different practices are acceptable in different societies, and those practices are defined, over time, by society. A noninflamatory example, interest on loans.
Ron
Posted: June 04, 2007 9:33 AM
I very much enjoyed this debate. Hitchens was his usual entertaining self, and Wilson (whom I had never heard of before) certainly held his own, and quite frankly provided me with the most logical definition of Christianity I have heard or read. I am a former Athiest turned Deist. The transition was gradual. but I still remember the day it first occured to me (wishful thinking maybe?) that the very fact we humans have the ability to wonder about the existance of a God is rather strong evidence that there just might be one. It would be an awful waste of brain power if there is not :-).
Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.
If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.
RSS Feeds
Audio
Twitter
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
